Carmelo Ruiz. Blog de un periodista / A journalist's blog

Blogueando desde marzo de 2004 / Blogging since March 2004. Creador también de The World According to Carmelo: carmeloruiz.tumblr.com. Contacto: ruiz@tutanota.com. Twitter: @carmeloruiz

sábado, febrero 28, 2009

“Run Through the Light” by YES

“Run Through the Light” by Yes is a beautiful and unusual track from Drama, definitely the band's oddest album. Released in 1980, Drama is the only Yes album done without founding member and lead singer Jon Anderson and the only one to feature Trevor Horn on lead vocals and Geoff Downes on keyboards. At that point, bassist Chris Squire became the only remaining founding member and the only one to have participated in all of the group's recordings and tours until then.

“Run Through the Light” is unique and unusual in the band's 40 year history for two reasons. First, it is the first Yes track ever to feature someone other than Chris Squire on bass, and the only Yes track which had Trevor Horn playing that instrument in Squire's stead. Second, the handiwork of session assistant Hugh Pagdham is particularly evident in this track. Pagdham, who would in later years become famous for producing for Phil Collins and Genesis, and is credited with developing Collins' famous gated drum sound. Just check out Allan White's drum sound in this track.

The instrumental towards the end of this song is one of the group's finest moments. No visuals, sorry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------Community members and friends from the area of Punta Las Marias in San Juan have obtained the use of a private property for the development of an urban organic garden! The property is completely fenced and has several yard sections to cultivate and "play with" plus a small house with excellent indoor space for workshops, exhibitions, materials etc. They are gathering names of those interested in participating in their first organizational meeting and/or sponsoring either thru volunteer work and/or donations, monetary and/or tools, materials, etc. SIEMBRA TRES VIDAS has already started assisting them with suggestions, directions, donated seeds and labor.For more information on how to participate, please contact:Eric & Lin Fridman (erlinc68@aol.com)Susan Fairbanks (greencuisine@hotmail.com)Jeevan Kracht (jibanamar@yahoo.com)

miércoles, febrero 25, 2009

http://www.greens.org/s-r/47/47-02.html

Production-Side Environmentalism

by Don Fitz

Excerpts:

Production-side environmentalism places blame on the criminal rather than the victim. It looks at the profits oil companies reap from urban sprawl rather than demeaning people who have no way to get to work other than driving a car. Production-side environmentalism looks at an agro-food industry which profits from transporting highly processed, over-packaged, nutrient-depleted junk thousands of miles rather than the parent giving in to a child bombarded with Saturday morning pop-tart-porn TV.

******

The word "meaningful" is key in understanding whether consumption goes up, goes down, or stagnates. If a stove is manufactured to last 10 years instead of 50 years, a couple may purchase 5 stoves instead of 1 during a 50-year marriage. This is an increase in consumption in only the most frivolous, non-meaningful way. In the world of real people, as opposed to the fantasy world of economists, there has actually been a slight decrease in meaningful consumption. There were four times when the couple was without a stove.

Since WWII, and especially since the 1960s, America has witnessed a massive overproduction of what is profitable and an obscene shrinking of what is needed. There has been a mushrooming growth of nuclear weapons and other war toys that nobody can eat, wear or live in. Being able to get from here to there has been replaced with traffic jams and commercials telling us how happy we are to consume individual automobiles. The construction industry has shot up as buildings last fewer years. Food epitomizes simultaneous overproduction and underconsumption as Americans are increasingly obese and less nourished.

******

Dramatically reducing production would profoundly reduce CO2 emissions, extend the use of available oil by centuries, and eliminate human expansion into species habitat. If people working at and living near manufacturing facilities were the ones making decisions about production, it would become possible to eliminate toxins that poison humans and other species.

Preaching to people that they "have to learn to do without" what a corporate society forces them to purchase will accomplish little more than antagonizing them. In contrast, organizing people to make corporations "learn to do without" the profits from destructive production is an essential for confronting ecological crises. Let's look at a few economic sectors.

martes, febrero 24, 2009

FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS DISASTROUS EPILEPTIC DOG BENEFIT CONCERT

The song begins fairly well, as a cheesy 80's-style power ballad. But towards the end it abruptly changes into a high-tempo techno remix, and the blinking stage lights cause epileptic seizures on all the dogs in the audience- a complete disaster.

Obama adviser John Podesta says the summit is the first step in a process to help the public "understand how the financial balance sheet of the federal government comes back into order."

Translation: Middle class and poor folks are going to really get nailed.

According to the Washington Post Obama's team has invited big business, economists and a range of other "special interests" to the event which will feature five breakout sessions. Larry Summers (refer to Naomi Klein interview here) will lead the discussion on Social Security. Hold onto your hat.

Former Republican senator Jon Danforth calls it a "media event." He's right, they are preparing the American people for the clamp-down.

The Post also reports that one of the key goals of the summit is, "Controlling spending on a vast social safety net for the elderly and the poor that threatens to bankrupt the government."

Then they say, "Lawmakers also will be asked to dedicate more money to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and perhaps another round of cash to prop up the crippled financial system and to stimulate the sagging economy."

Translation: They want to cut Medicare and Social Security so they can fund two wars and more bailouts for Wall Street. And they will call it "fiscal responsibility." Watch out for this kind of change, it will kill you.

Each day we get another tiny glimpse of the Obama plan. When he went to Canada this past week he told our neighbors to the north that his campaign promise to renegotiate the NAFTA trade agreement would "have to wait." Surprise, surprise.

You might remember that during the campaign one of his top economic aides went to Canada and was caught, in an unguarded moment, telling them that Obama didn't really mean all this free trade talk about changing NAFTA, it was only a campaign tactic. So in a way he kept this promise - to the Canadians anyway.

Obama is being credited by the Washington pundits as "changing his tone." So he got off Bush's horse, took off his six-shooter holster, and is now "projecting an image of competence and reengagement." In the end most of the big economic and military policies will be much the same but the tone will be more gentle and inclusive.

What about our side? Well, on Tuesday next week, the day after Obama's fiscal responsibility media event, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) will hold a briefing in Washington on his proposal to cut the military budget by 25%. He is inviting organizations to come to the event and to then go home and build support for this version of "fiscal responsibility." So we do have a horse in this race being led by Rep. Frank and it is up to us out here in the hinterlands to put a saddle on it and grab Paul Revere's lantern and begin riding the local circuit and sounding the alarm - "Fiscal responsibility is coming, cut the military budget."

You see there is a war going on inside the Democratic party today. It's a battle between those who want to enable the corporations and those who want to help the people who put them into office. It's time to pick a side in this contest.

We can see the score now. How it turns out is up to you. Take responsibility or face the consequences.

For the past eight years, the oil giant formerly known as British Petroleum has tried to convince the world that its initials stand for “Beyond Petroleum.” An announcement just issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may suggest that the real meaning of BP is Brazen Polluter.

The EPA revealed that BP Products North America will pay nearly $180 million to settle charges that it has failed to comply with a 2001 consent decree under which it was supposed to implement strict controls on benzene and benzene-tainted waste generated by the company’s vast oil refining complex in Texas City, Texas, located south of Houston. Since the 1920s, benzene has been known to cause cancer.

Among BP’s self-proclaimed corporate values is to be “environmentally responsible with the aspiration of ‘no damage to the environment’” and to ensure that “no one is subject to unnecessary risk while working for the group.” Somehow, that message did not seem to make its way to BP’s operation in Texas City, which has a dismal performance record.

The benzene problem in Texas City was supposed to be addressed as part of the $650 million agreement BP reached in January 2001 with the EPA and the Justice Department covering eight refineries around the country. Yet environmental officials in Texas later found that benzene emissions at the plant remained high. BP refused to accept that finding and tried to stonewall the state, which later imposed a fine of $225,000.

In March 2005 a huge explosion (photo) at the refinery killed 15 workers and injured more than 170. The blast blew a hole in a benzene storage tank, contaminating the air so seriously that safety investigators could not enter the site for a week after the incident.

BP was later cited for egregious safety violations and paid a record fine of $21.4 million. Subsequently, a blue-ribbon panel chaired by former secretary of state James Baker III found that BP had failed to spend enough money on safety and failed to take other steps that could have prevented the disaster in Texas City. Still later, the company paid a $50 million fine as part of a plea agreement on related criminal charges.

In an apparent effort to repair its image, BP has tried to associate itself with positive environmental initiatives. The company was, for instance, one of the primary sponsors of the big Good Jobs/Green Jobs conference held in Washington earlier this month. Yet as long as BP operates dirty facilities such as the Texas City refinery, the company’s sunburst logo, its purported earth-friendly values and its claim of going beyond petroleum will be nothing more than blatant greenwashing.

This report should be regarded with skepticism and concern. Its authors are good at pointing out the pitfalls and problems of biofuels but in the end- and against all logic- conclude that biofuel production can be made sustainable with a few reforms here and there. They assume from the start that biofuels are desirable and inevitable. The industrialized North's voracious and irresponsible consumption is unadressed, and endless economic growth remains unquestioned. Reports like these can do more harm than good, since their most immediate and obvious effect will be to confound and divide the environmental movement on this issue.

Washington, D.C.—The Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute today released a report, Smart Choices for Biofuels, highlighting the need for important policy reforms at this critical juncture in America’s effort to increase the use of biofuels. The report outlines the economic and environmental impacts of first-generation biofuels such as corn ethanol, proposes strategies to make the biofuels industry more sustainable, and offers specific policy recommendations in four broad categories:

Developing sustainability standards

Advancing biofuels production and new technologies

Creating green jobs through biofuels

Promoting policy coherence across energy sectors

“At a time of volatile gas prices and rising concern about global warming, it has become clear that biofuels can play a role in reducing dependence on oil and curbing climate change,” said Christopher Flavin, President of Worldwatch Institute. “However, the large and growing scale of the industry make it critical that Congress now make smart choices that promote sustainable biofuels—rather than just more biofuels—as part of a clean energy economy.”

U.S. biofuels production in 2008 topped 9 billion gallons—the vast majority of which was corn ethanol—and successive Congressional mandates call for the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels by the year 2022. Domestic biofuels output has more than doubled since 2005, and the report explores the many issues associated with this dramatic increase in the production of renewable fuels, including: the global warming emissions profile of corn ethanol; the effect on the Conservation Reserve Program; other effects on the nation’s air, water, and land; and the lower-than-expected economic benefits for rural communities.

“The headlong rush toward biofuels—corn ethanol in particular—has had many consequences, some foreseen and others not,” said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. “The downside risks to our land, air, water, and economy have become readily apparent, but the good news is that with smart choices we can make biofuels work for the environment, economy, and climate, while enhancing our energy security.”

Smart Choices for Biofuels maps a future path for biofuels to ensure that they are more environmentally and socially sustainable and that the use of renewable fuels for transportation contributes to the global effort to reduce global warming pollution. The steps proposed in the report include an accelerated transition to cellulosic feedstocks such as switchgrass and the use of more effective agricultural practices to decrease erosion and soil nutrient depletion. The report also recommends complementary steps beyond improvements in biofuels production, such as the promotion of plug-in hybrid vehicles and increased investments in public transportation, which could also help achieve crucial energy and climate goals.

Finally, the report concludes that if a renewable fuels mandate is to contribute effectively to reducing foreign oil dependence and curbing global warming, it must be reevaluated in light of changing circumstances. Changes in four broad policy categories—sustainability standards, advancing biofuels production and new technologies, creating green jobs, and promoting policy coherence across energy sectors—are detailed in the report.

Sierra Club and Worldwatch Institute previously collaborated on biofuels and sustainability when they released a report in October 2007 focused solely on Iowa , titled Destination Iowa : Getting to a Sustainable Biofuels Future.

Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society

by Ted Trainer

EXCERPT:

There is an overwhelmingly powerful, never questioned, assumption that all these problems can and will be solved by moving to renewable energy sources. That is, it is generally believed that sources such as the sun and the wind can replace fossil fuels, providing the quantities of energy that consumer society will need, in the forms and at the times that they are needed. Surprisingly, almost no literature has explored whether this is possible. Unfortunately in the task of assessing the validity of this dominant assumption we have not been helped by the people who know most about the field, the renewable energy experts. They have a strong interest in boosting the potential of their pet technology and in not drawing attention to its weaknesses, difficulties and limits. Exaggerated, misleading, questionable and demonstrably false claims are often encountered in the promotional literature. Minor technical advances which might or might not become significant in the long run are announced as miraculous solutions. Doubts regarding the potential of renewable technologies are rarely if ever heard from within these fields.

…renewable energy experts…have a strong interest in boosting the potential of their pet technology…

This enthusiasm is understandable in view of’ the need to attract public support and research funding, but it means that contributions by those most familiar with these fields to the critical assessment of the potential and limits of renewables are quite rare. In developing the following review, considerable difficulty has been encountered from people hostile to having attention drawn to the weaknesses in their technologies and proposals (including threats of legal action if data they have provided in personal communications is used). Sources eager to provide information tend to dry up when they realize that limits are being explored. In addition some of the crucial information will not be made public by the private firms developing the new systems. For example it is almost impossible to get information on actual windmill output in relation to mean wind speeds at generating sites.

Unfortunately these difficulties have meant that at times it has not been possible to get access to information that would settle an issue and that must exist somewhere, and that at times one has to attempt an indirect estimation using whatever scraps of information one has been able to find. Ideally this study would have been carried out by someone more expert in renewable energy technology than I am, but it is understandable that the task has been left for an outsider to take up.

A key question that is often asked about ecological agriculture, including organic agriculture, is whether it can be productive enough to meet the world's food needs. While many agree that ecological agriculture is desirable from an environmental and social point of view, fears remain that ecological and organic agriculture produces low yields.

This briefing paper by Senior FellowLim Li Ching summarizes some of the available evidence to demystify the productivity debate and demonstrate that ecological agriculture is indeed productive, especially so in developing countries.

lunes, febrero 16, 2009

Flight Of The Conchords in 4 Minutes

The Buchla sound synthesizer is the most cumbersome, complicated, impractical, bizarre and fascinating "music" instrument I've ever seen- and heard! The development of the Buchla parallels in many ways that of the better known Moog, except for, among other things, the little detail that inventor Don Buchla never saw much use for a keyboard. Unlike conventional synthesizers, Buchla instruments are controlled by a variety of triggers, some bearing no more than a passing resemblance to a piano keyboard.

The resulting sounds are truly disturbing and amazing, check it out!:

It's a good thing I did not have one of these when I was a teenager studying in Baldwin High- my father would have told me to "turn it down" so many times...

The Buchla was used in the disco version of the Star Wars theme music in 1977, making all the squeaky noises that mimicked laser blasts and all that. That was the work of Suzanne Ciani, who is the biggest Buchla expert in the whole world, with the exception of Don Buchla himself. I still keep and treasure a copy of the June 1979 issue of Keyboard Magazine which featured her in the cover.

Ciani reappeared in the 1980's making solo albums in the Private Music label.

This is some awesome footage of Ciani showing off her synthesizer and other fancy sound gear on David Letterman's short-lived daytime show on August 14 1980:

I heard that Michael McDonald wrote the theme music for that show, but I digress...

Pink Floyd apparently used a Buchla synthesizer in "On The Run", a track on the "Dark Side of the Moon" album. My brother says Roger Waters handled the Buchla's controls and made all the crazy sounds in that "song", if it can be called a song. Can anyone confirm this?

BackgroundThe Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety seeks to protect human health and biodiversity from the potential hazards created by the use and dissemination of living “Genetically Modified Organisms” (GMOs), while taking into account socio-economic considerations. Implementation of biosafety regulation is therefore the focus of many countries to establish such safeguards. However, the process of implementing the Protocol has unveiled a limited capacity for science-based hazard identification that is necessary to perform risk assessments, and a holistic understanding of the policy, legal, regulatory, ethical, economic and social dimensions, which is necessary for decision making. In the past 5 years a broad introductory course on hazard identification , risk assessment and biosafety regulation has been offered to fill the capacity gap. Bi-annually over the next 5 years, specialist courses with advanced material will be offered to build beyond the introductory course.

About the courseA critical issue facing most countries is how to manage the coexistence of agroecosystems that use GMOs and those that do not. The flow of transgenes between these different ecosystems—whether within a country or between countries—threatens the non-GMO farmer and consumer that wishes to avoid genetically modified (GM) products. This course will consider the issues created by transgene flow in depth.

The course is designed to provide policy makers, regulators, scientists, journalists and NGOs/civil society leaders, specifically from developing countries (ODA-countries), the knowledge and training necessary to develop a holistic view on the issues surrounding transgene flow and coexistence. The goal is to empower the participants with balanced information on transgene flow, in order to fairly, yet critically, evaluate the issue from their own perspective and country needs. A combination of plenary lectures and interactive sessions, with support from the Biosafety Assessment Tool will form the basis of the course, which aims to offer biosafety capacity building within a holistic framework. Participants will also attend the conference immediately following the Course (23-26 August).

Eligibility and selection processThis course is open to applicants from developing (ODA) countries that have successfully completed one of GenØk’s introductory courses in biosafety (2003-2008), as well as to those who can demonstrate relevant expertise and experience in biosafety work.

The course application form must be filled out entirely and with as much detail as possible. The applicant must provide information about the type/level of position they are holding, and state the basis for their interest in the course. In addition, a brief CV is required for consideration. Applicants for a place in the course must also submit a short abstract related to the topics of the course from which they may be chosen to present a poster or a talk at the associated conference. The working language of the course will be English only, and as such, applicants should be able to work sufficiently well in English in both oral and written communications.

Gender, occupation and regional criteria are used in the selection of participants in order to achieve representational balance. The selection committee usually completes the selection by 1 May.

Course + conference - self-financed participantsThe course has additional 15 places available to participants from all countries that are able to secure their own sponsorship/funding. Previous participation in a GenØk course is not required, but we recommend that the candidate should have extensive experience and expertise in biosafety work in order to benefit fully from the course and conference. The course/conference fee of USD 1000 includes curricular materials, lunch (8 days), opening/farewell ceremony, conference fee, and local transport. In addition, self-financing participants will also have to pay for their travel and accommodation (course/conference hotel NOK 1195/night (approx. US $170) incl. breakfast and dinner buffet). A list of alternative accommodation can be provided. Applications for self-financed places should be submitted no later than 10 June 2009. The places are allocated on a first come first served basis. Participants must be prepared to pay the course fee when registering.

Conference only – self-financed participantsThe conference is open to all. For more information and registration see our website www.genok.org where information soon will be announced.